>A sandbox is typically a branch or repository that is used to "play" around with >new code. I'll probably have to share that code through bitbucket as I don't have >the privileges to commit to the repository. Or can I get sufficient privileges to >commit to a branch in the ASF repository? > >Roy, didn't you say you already did some work there? Would you share it so that >we don't duplicate effort?
My work was initially changes to the existing code and the more I changed the more I realized that it was digging a deeper hole. That was when I realized more of the subtleties and ambiguities in the existing code. I am not sure that there is anything to share. It is bits and pieces that are not coordinated because I was trying to work within the framework of the current implementation. My current plan is to dummy up a new RFA (configuration points) and write the XML doc for the configuration points and pass the result of that out for review and comments. We must be explicit about the semantics of the new configuration. We have already observed cases where I have not correctly interrupted the meaning of Dominik was suggesting. Once we agree on the configuration and semantics of that configuration, things can go better. I am also thinking about not deriving from FileAppender as Curt mentioned in the emails about the new RFA for log4j. I will have to think about that more after we finalize the new design and I see the new FileAppender with the Mutex locking etc. If we want to support Mutex locking in RFA(NG), then it might be best to continue to derive from FileAppender and wrap all the rolling in the Mutex. If we do not want to support that type of locking, then not getting involved with FileAppender may make the code cleaner, but it will increase the amount of code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Chastain
